in the Guardian that led to his election for Stockbridge, the motion was made to expel him, for having "maliciously insinuated that the Protestant succession in the House of Hanover is in danger under her Majesty's Administration," the Whigs rallied to his support with what strength they could. Robert Walpole and General Stanhope took their place on either side of him as he waited at the bar, and Addison prompted him throughout his spirited and temperate defence. He spoke, says one who heard him, for near three hours, with such temper, eloquence, and unconcern as gave entire satisfaction to all who were not prepossessed against him. But perhaps the most interesting occurrence of that memorable day was the speech of Lord Finch. This young nobleman, afterwards famous as a minister and orator, owed gratitude to Steele for having repelled, in the Guardian, a libel on his sister, and he rose to make his maiden speech in defence of her defender. But bashfulness overcame him; and after a few confused sentences he sat down, crying out as he did so, "It is strange I cannot speak for this man, though I could readily fight for him!" Upon this such cheering rang through the House, that suddenly the young lord took heart, rose again, and made the first of a long series of able and telling speeches. Of course, however, it did not save Steele, who was expelled by a majority of nearly a hundred, in a House of four hundred members.-Forster's Essay on Steele.

The Silent and the Eloquent.-On the death of Queen Anne, and the breaking up of the Tory party, Steele was again returned to Parliament, for Boroughbridge, and made some figure as a speaker. He wittily described the House, at the time, as consisting very much of silent people oppressed by the choice of a great deal to say, and of eloquent people ignorant that what they said was nothing to the purpose.

Triennial Parliaments.-Steele was a warm advocate in the House of Commons of the repeal of the Act which limited the duration of Parliaments to three years. In a speech on the subject he said: "Ever since the Triennial Bill has been enacted the nation has been in a series of contentions. The first year of a Triennial Parliament has been spent in vindictive decisions and animosities about the late elections. The second session has entered into business, but rather with a spirit of contradiction to what the prevailing set of men in former Parliaments had brought to pass than for a disinterested zeal for the common good. The third session has languished in the pursuit of what little was intended to be done in the second; and the approach of an ensuing election has terrified the members into a servile management, according as their respective principals were disposed towards the question before them in the House. Thus the state of England has been like that of a vessel in distress at sea; the pilot and mariners have been wholly employed in keeping the ship from sinking; the art of navigation was useless, and they never pretended to make sail.'

Not a Good Pedestrian.-William Whiston, in his "Memoirs," writes of Steele: "I shall set down one encounter I had with him at Button's coffee-house, when he was a Member of Parliament, and had been making a speech in the House of Commons, in the days of King

George I., to please the court, but against his own conscience, for the South Sea directors, then under the great disgrace of the nation; and against which South Sea scheme he had before for some time written weekly papers, till he saw he could not recover his post of Censor of the Playhouse, from which he had been turned out, which used to bring him some hundreds a year, without making such a speech. I accosted him thus: They say, Sir Richard, you have been making a speech in the House of Commons for the South Sea directors.' He replied, 'They do say so.' To which I answered, 'How does this agree with your former writing against that scheme?' His rejoinder was thus: Mr. Whiston, you can walk on foot and I cannot.' Than which a truer or an acuter

answer could not have been made by anybody."

THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD.

(1694-1773.)

A Youthful Adversary Disarmed.-Chesterfield was returned to the House of Commons when Lord Stanhope, and before he had attained full age. He spoke soon after his entrance, attacking the Oxford ministry, and said, "He never wished to spill the blood of any of his countrymen, much less the blood of any nobleman, but he was persuaded the safety of his country required that examples should be made of those who had betrayed it in so infamous a manner.” The reply of the Government was a very prudent one. It was privately intimated to the young speaker that he had displayed great ability, but, in taking his seat although a minor,* he had exposed himself to a penalty of five hundred pounds, which would not be enforced against him unless he attempted to vote. Stanhope took the hint and left the house, to which he did not return till duly qualified.

A Hint to Statesmen.-The Earl of Chesterfield delivered a speech in the House of Lords, 1737, against the Play-house Bill. The following extract is from the "Parliamentary History: "-"It is not licentiousness, it is an useful liberty, always indulged the stage in a free country, that some great men may there meet with a just reproof, which none of their friends will be free enough, or rather faithful enough, to give them. Of this we have a famous instance in the Roman history. The great Pompey, after the many victories he had obtained and the great conquests he had made, had certainly a good title to the esteem of the people of Rome; yet that great man, by some error in his conduct, became an object of general dislike. And therefore, in the representation of an old play, when Diphilus, the actor, came to repeat these words, 'Nostra miseriâ tu es Magnus,' the audience immediately applied them to Pompey, who at that time was as well known by the name Magnus as by that of Pompey, and were so highly pleased with the satire that, as Cicero says, they made the actor repeat the words a hundred times over. An account of this was immediately sent to Pompey, who, instead of resenting it as an injury, was so wise as to take it for a just reproof; he

* See p. 20.

examined his conduct, he altered his measures, he regained by degrees the esteem of the people, and then he neither feared the wit nor felt the satire of the stage. This is an example which ought to be followed by great men in all countries."

Dexterity with a Difficult Subject.-A bill for the reform of the Calendar was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Chesterfield in 1751, and in his "Letters" he thus alludes to his speech: "This bill was necessarily composed of law jargon and astronomical calculations, to both which I am an utter stranger. However, it was absolutely necessary to make the House of Lords think that I knew something of the matter, and also to make them believe that they knew something of it themselves, which they do not. For my own part, I could just as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well; so I resolved to do better than speak to the purpose, and to please instead of informing them. I gave them, therefore, only an historical account of calendars, from the Egyptian down to the Gregorian, amusing them now and then with little episodes; but I was particularly attentive to the choice of my words, to the harmony and soundness of my periods, to my elocution, to my action. This succeeded, and ever will succeed. They thought I informed, because I pleased them; and many of them said that I had made the whole very clear to them, when, God knows, I had not even attempted it. Lord Macclesfield, who had the greatest share in framing the bill, and who is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterwards with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of; but, as his words, his periods, and his utterance were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me. This will ever be the case; every numerous assembly is a mob, let the individuals who compose it be what they will."

Bleeding for One's Country.-Maty, in his memoir of Chesterfield, relates that Lord R, with many good qualities, and even learning and parts, had a strong desire of being thought skilful in physic, and was very expert in bleeding. Lord Chesterfield, who knew his foible, and on a particular occasion wished to have his vote, came to him one morning, and, after having conversed upon indifferent matters, complained of the headache, and desired his lordship to feel his pulse. It was found to beat high, and a hint of losing blood given. "I have no objection; and, as I hear your lordship has a masterly hand, will you favour me with trying your lancet upon me ? Apropos," said Lord Chesterfield, after the operation, "do you go to the House to-day?" Lord R answered, “I did not intend to go, not being sufficiently informed of the question which is to be debated; but you, who have considered it, which side will you be of?" The earl, having gained his confidence, easily directed his judgment; he carried him to the House, and got him to vote as he pleased. He used afterwards to say that none of his friends had done so much as he, having literally bled for the good of his country.

H

SIR ROBERT WALPOLE.

(1676-1745.)

A Tory Physician and his Whig Patient.-During Walpole's residence at King's College, Cambridge, he was seized with the small-pox, which was of a malignant sort, and he continued for some time in imminent danger. Dr. Brady, the famous historical advocate for the Tory principles of the English Constitution, who was his physician, said to one of the Fellows of King's College, warmly attached to the same party, "We must take care to save this young man, or we shall be accused of having purposely neglected him, because he is so violent a Whig.” Notwithstanding Brady's political prejudices, he was so much pleased with the spirit and disposition of his young patient that he observed, with an affectionate attachment, "His singular escape seems to be a sure indication that he is reserved for important purposes."-Coxe's Walpole."

A Long Lease of Power.-Robert Walpole was sent to Parliament for King's Lynn in 1702, when twenty-six years of age. In 1708 he was made Secretary at War, and afterwards Treasurer of the Navy. He became Prime Minister for the first time in 1715, but resigned in 1717, and was reappointed in 1721, holding also the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. Notwithstanding the personal dislike of George II., he was confirmed in the Premiership on the accession of that King in 1727, and continued to hold the position for fifteen years longer, making altogether twenty-one years' uninterrupted administration—the longest term a single individual has ever remained at the head of the government.

Committal to the Tower.-The accusation of corruption brought against Walpole by the Commissioners of Public Accounts was made (says Coxe) December 21st, 1711. They charged him with having taken two notes of hand-one for five hundred guineas, the other for five hundred pounds-while he was Secretary-at-War, for forage contracts in Scotland. In consequence of these reports he was heard in his own defence, January 17th, 1712. Ultimately the House resolved that he had been guilty of a high breach of trust, that he should be committed to the Tower, and expelled the House. Next morning Walpole surrendered himself a prisoner, and was committed to the Tower, where he remained till the prorogation of Parliament. A new writ having been issued for Lynn, he was re-elected; but on a petition by Samuel Taylor, the opposing candidate, the House declared Walpole incapable of serving in that Parliament. While he remained in prison he was considered a martyr to the cause of the Whigs, and visited by persons of the highest distinction and ability, his apartment exhibiting the appearance of a crowded levee.

The Office of Prime Minister, and Government by Parliament. The first (writes Mr. Ewald) who made the office of Prime Minister, such as we now understand it to be, was Sir Robert Walpole. "It was not until his rise that the Prime Minister began to be regarded as the recognised leader of his party, the responsible adviser of the

6

Crown, and the head of the Cabinet. The history of the great minister of peace' is the history of a man who understood to the full the nature of the change from government by prerogative to government by parliament, who saw that parliamentary government and government by party were synonymous terms, and who had deeply studied the then new political doctrine that power was not dependent upon the royal approval, upon the intrinsic excellence of the measures introduced, upon ability or popularity, but upon the skilful working of a parliamentary majority. He was the first of English statesmen to recognise the advantages of a united Cabinet, and he gave proof of the light in which he regarded the influence of the House of Commons by being the first of our line of premiers who resigned office in obedience to an adverse vote of the Lower House. With the career of Sir Robert Walpole begins the history of the faults and the advantages, the patriotism and the selfishness, of government by Parliament."

Limitation of the Peerage.-In 1717 a bill was introduced by the Stanhope Ministry to limit the royal prerogative in the creation of peers. The existing number of the House of Lords was not to be increased beyond six, unless in the case of royal princes; future peerages were to be limited to the grantees and their immediate heirs; new creations were only to be made in cases of extinction; and the sixteen representative peers of Scotland were to be replaced by twenty-five hereditary peers nominated by the King. These provisions were carried in the House of Lords by a large majority, but were strenuously opposed by Walpole in the Commons, and "it may be doubted," writes Earl Stanhope the historian, "if any harangue of so much eloquence and effect had ever yet been delivered in the House." In opening his speech Walpole said: "Among the Romans the Temple of Fame was placed behind the Temple of Virtue, to denote that there was no coming to the temple of Fame but through that of Virtue. But if this bill is passed into a law, one of the most powerful incentives to virtue would be taken away, since there would be no arriving at honour but through the winding-sheet of an old decrepit lord or the grave of an extinct noble family: a policy very different from that glorious and enlightened nation, who made it their pride to hold out to the world illustrious examples of merited elevation,

'Patere honoris scirent ut cuncti viam.'

It is very far from my thoughts to depreciate the advantages or detract from the respect due to illustrious birth; for though the philosopher may say with the poet,

'Et genus et proavos, et quæ non fecimus ipsi,

Vix ea nostra voco,'

yet the claim derived from that advantage, though fortuitous, is so generally and so justly conceded, that every endeavour to subvert the principle would merit contempt and abhorrence. But though illustrious birth forms one undisputed title to pre-eminence and superior consideration, yet surely it ought not to be the only one. The origin of high titles was derived from the will of the sovereign to reward signal services